Prove to me that guns stop crime.

Of the 13,000 gun deaths last year, post ten news stories of guns stopping one. ..................... Didn't think so.

How much domestic violence is enabled by guns and isn't reported?

The violent crimes, property crimes, cost of enforcement, and loss of human liberties, thanks to the DRUG WAR.



You, sir, are fighting a ridiculous battle, and this issue has driven so many people away from the Democratic Party, due to certain members of the party wearing that "better than the little people" crown, that one wonders whether that was the purpose after all.

All these groups are strongly for gun regulation. Let's piss on the majority of American's and especially our own party's base by lining up with NAZI's like Cheney and deLay on gun issues. Isn't that what you're saying?

The real reason Dems are losing is BBV and voter suppression, not the reasonable gun regulation the rest of the industrialized world enjoy's.

The drug war is a seperate issue that is also exacerbated by our our pathetically weak gun regs as is our world leading incarceration rate. The whole American worldview on crime is a failure that that makes money for the rightwing corporations by promoting buying guns and putting people in prison rather than improving law enforcement.

and you shoot me instead...well, that would be one!

:popcorn:

anyway you nanny state, fascist.

almost always against someone with another gun.

Nonetheless, every dingdong who can afford a popgun thinks he's going to be Chuck Norris...and the words "innocent bystander" never intrude on these fantasies...although they occur all too often in the real world.

just ask Bill Bennett

he'll cite that Freak-o-nomics book for you

then he'll scurry back to his private one armed bandit

are the REALLY H.Bosch action figures!!? so cool. where can i get some!?

Gun accidents are not that uncommon. It isn't just about crime. It is about a very dangerous piece of equipment that gets into untrained hands all too easily.

Congress won't give mony to keep track of gun injuries treated in hospitals. Check out this article.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Few study solutions for guns

Lack of money, political pressure and threats block hard look at violence with firearms

By Sarah A. Webster / The Detroit News

DETROIT

The 90,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians had emotional debates last year on what stance to take on firearms, largely because there is a dearth of fair research to provide guidance.
“The evidence has been pretty thin,” said Dr. Richard Roberts, the organization’s president-elect.

Similar debates erupted within the 62,000-member College of Surgeons. “The committee on trauma has been pointing (the lack of research) out for years and years,” said Dr. Gerald O. Strauch, director of that group’s trauma department.

Gun research focuses on a variety of points, such as what product modifications might reduce injuries. It also could provide a circumstantial breakdown of shootings, explaining how many were domestic in nature or gang-related, and what might be done to prevent these incidents.

But there has been little money for gun investigations since 1996, when the National Rifle Association convinced Congress to kill the $2.6 million firearm research budget of the Centers for Disease Control.
------------------snip------------------------------------

What is it that the gun lobby and it's neocon allies don't want America to know?

"What is it that the gun lobby and it's neocon allies don't want America to know?"


...that use of GUNS, for any reason, is profoundly ANTI-SOCIAL, and inherently insane.

then it would be a good start

:rofl:

Crime is a socio-economic phenomenon beyond the simple presence of guns or lack thereof. If you are advancing an argument in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, then I think you are missing several issues.

You can tell all the law abiding citizens in the land to give up their guns, but criminals will not listen, and they will only smuggle in more, and it will do nothing to address the economic conditions that could give rise to violent crime. Things such as crushing poverty and lack of opportunities have done more than their fair share in contributing to crime and deaths related to those crimes than anything else.

With respect to gun accidents, I have said it in the past, but I'll say it again. I support the notion of requiring everybody to learn how to store, maintain, and ultimately use these weapons. If the Swiss can do it, I think we can as well. Outside the US, the Swiss have the highest gun ownership rate per capita in the world, yet deaths attributed to gun crime or gun accidents are a fraction of that seen in the US.

the other stuff later.

If people choose to have guns in their homes, I have no problem with that provided they are competent with those weapons. As it is, the situation is unsatisfactory, and I think we can do better, but I'm not going to support abolition of guns.

That reminds me of the simpsons episode when the aliens took over earth after the simpsons wished for peace, and they were able to take em over with just a 2x4 with a nail in it or somethin like that LOL

:rofl:

I don't want to worry about that later. They have guns NOW!

I vote we try it.

Redstone

Except in a few areas, gun control gets defeated over and over. Think I'm wrong? Look at the large number of states that have gone to "Shall-issue" CCWs in the past few years.

Try pushing your plan, and even more Democrats will lose in elections.

Most of these failed gun laws you love are backroom deals by corrupt and even illegitimate politicians.

You guys even lost a referendum in Missouri, hardly an elitist place. Has your side ever won a referendum?

It was an issue in the campaign that a certain politician used very effectively. Ann lost. Look who used that governorship to leap to the Presidency. Suppose Ann had signed it.

After the AWB passed, we lost a lot of seats in the House, bringing to an end 40 years of having a Democratic majority.

Bill Clinton has said that the gun issue cost Gore AR & TN. If he had carried those, FL would have not mattered.

I Googled and Googled and can't find one.

I thought Ann lost because she was a lesbian.

Any links to what Bill Clinton said?

BTW, even with all the help the gun lobby and their followers gave Chimpy in 2000 and 2004, he actually couldn't win without cheating. If you gun "enthusiasts" have so much power, why do they have to cheat?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you could very easily defend yourself without a gun, right? You could just hack up a home intruder using your ninja sword and Chuck Norris' roundhouse kick.

Why should I have to?

the thrust of my original post that I favor a national gun safety education program provided through the public school system. If people are at least educated about how to store and maintain these guns, then I would say it will go a long way towards reducing the number of gun accidents seen in this country.

deal with aggressive dogs, because it isnt the dogs fault, it is mine for not knowing enough about dogs.

i am all for people having the right to own guns. and i am all for my right to never have to be around guns, even in a classroom enviroment. and i really dont like the idea of giving all kids the hands on experience with guns. maybe some parents know their child well enough that they wouldnt be responsible with a gun, yet the state decides we are all going to be conditioned to guns and made comfortable with them.

the person who wants their child to learn about guns, hopefully will do it in a responsible way and send them to the classes, i believe what 12? not everyone wants anything to do with guns, and we shouldnt be made to. a lot of people want their guns, and i think they should be allowed to.

The program should be there for parents who wish to enroll their children in, but I wouldn't force parents to do anything against their will with respect to this issue.

why you would want it in schools. so inappropriate in schools. and there are other things for the kids to learn. would have to be extracurricular. couldn't take the place of math. my husband took a class at the appropriate age, and both my boys will too. i just dont see it needs to have anything to do with schools personally. but like i say, though i dont like guns, i am absolutely a supporter of the right to own guns. i would never try to take that away from all the guys in my family. i just insist on safety and taking it seriously, otherwise it has nothing to do with me. BUT i do feel it is important for the parent to insist their children take the safety and learning classes.

Unlike the Swiss, we do not have a defensive national militia system where there are facilities in each respective community adequate and proper for the training of people in the use, maintenance, and storage of firearms. We centralized it more along the Prussian model of national self-defense, which, unfortunately, lends itself readily to power projection on top of other countries, and we don't have enough shooting ranges that are easily accessible to many people.

I'm not suggesting that it is going to replace math, science, etc., and I'm not suggesting we turn the football field into a makeshift shooting range, but what I am trying to propose is a solution that takes into account the realities on the ground. The current education programs out there are scatter-shot and not uniform, not to mention potentially inadequate. If every parent was serious about guns tomorrow, these programs would be sunk instantly because they wouldn't be able to handle the influx of new enrollees. This is why I think the idea of some sort of national education program seems most practical.

The devil is in the details, of course, but we could get it to work provided we want to put forth the effort to make it work. This simply is not an issue the government alone should be expected to shoulder. It is a community issue as well as a family and an individual issue. If all those links work together, I don't see how it would not work out. If we don't want it in schools, fine. We can spend time building shooting ranges that are easily accessible.

extra curriculars outside of school hours. By including these shooting lessons in the regular school day, you are taking valuable time away from academics.

If not that, I don't see how we could not extend the school year a bit further and tack it on the end when the regular curriculum has been completed. This way it wouldn't get in the way of regular studies for children because they will be finished for the year.

I am sitting here crying from laughing at the notion of extending the school day - not to teach readin and writin, not to raise test scores, not even to practice football, but to teach kids to shoot guns??????? You are honestly actually advocating putting kids on buses, driving them to a shooting range, putting GUNS IN THEIR HANDS and teaching them to shoot???????????????

Please tell me you are not now nor have you ever been employed in any capacity in the education industry. If you are, this is not funny anymore. :crazy: :scared:

I'm interested on how you would go about to try and bring down the level of gun accidents and gun deaths as a result of incompetence in this country? I also don't find anything ridiculous with extending the school year and teaching gun safety classes at the end of the school year when regular studies are finished.

have been lobbying FOR YEARS to extend our school day and/or our school year so we can have more time to teach ACADEMICS?? I guess not, since you think it would be no big deal to add this gun class.

I'm sorry. I know I am being less than kind here but I find this idea to be so totally ridiculous I am just astonished that any sane person would recommend it.

Just stop and think about this for more than a second. We have trouble including sex education in the curriculum in some school districts. Parents are banding together to persuade school boards to ban books. (Many are books we read in school many years ago which are now considered 'taboo'.) There are groups nationwide that are trying to stop us from teaching evolution. There is another active but lesser known group trying to get rid of school counselors; they don't want schools to teach kids to get along with each other or to manage anger. Yet you think including a class on shooting guns would be okay? You honestly believe parents and school boards will go along with this?

If you really believe this, I have some ocean front property in Kansas you may be interested in.

Teachers are already asked to be surrogate parents, nurses, social workers and counselors. Now you want us to agree to be firearms instructors? I believe I can speak for my colleagues here at DU and say no fucking way.

And I am sure you won't agree with this, but I think the best way to reduce accidental gun deaths is to reduce the access to guns. Fewer guns would equal fewer accidents.

to instruct the firearms class. Just my opinion.... :shrug:

or would the NRA do it?

:rofl:

I still believe some sort of national gun safety education program should be put in place. If you had bothered to reread my posts, I never insinuated making existing teachers teach these classes. I would rather it be done by active or retired members of the law enforcement community or the armed services. As I had said, if you don't want your kid enrolled in such a program, then don't.

If it means preventing the deaths of thousands of Americans each year due to gun accidents, then I would rather people learn about guns in a secure environment supervised by qualified personnel than what we have currently, which is frankly not much. Also, if you're going to keep up with the ad hominem attacks, consider the conversation over.

The problem with your suggestion about who would teach these classes is a matter of state certification. See, you can't just walk in to a public school and offer to teach a class. You have to be certified. Now if you somehow persuaded the school administrator to allow you to teach - and it does happen, for example we have health classes in my school taught by retired doctors - you still can't teach alone. A certified teacher must be present at all times while you are teaching.

So even if this idea would fly, and you arranged for retired cops to teach gun classes, it would take up the time and resources of a teacher on staff. That is an added expense. Plus you need to think about what this teacher's class load is and what you are keeping him/her from teaching while he/she supervises your gun safety class.

So it really isn't all that simple, even though, as you say, the school structure is already there.

I've seen it all now.

I think we should extend school days teaching kids about gun violence and teach them all the different reasons people buy them.

pissed off bicyclist

will never fly. We don't have enough time to teach the kids as it is. Please do not put anything else on our plate. Plus, no way will the day arrive when guns are allowed in schools.

I would envision training new teachers to specifically deal with this issue. Retired members of law enforcement could serve as the initial pool of teachers as the program is built up. Then we'd bring them in and teach alongside the other teachers, and I'd have it done on the shooting range, not on school campus.

the parent. this is NOT a school to do. there are programs out there for children to learn gun safety and take the classes. any parent serious about gun safety will make sure their children take the course and are certified.

you pay

WE DO NOT HAVE TIME IN THE SCHOOL DAY TO DO THIS.

Doing this at the shooting range would involve busing the kids there. That's a half day, minimum. I wasn't willing to give you a half hour before. No way can you have a half a day. LOL

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When I was in high school and a public school at that, thats where I built my first rifle.

Not that I'm against gun safety education. It should be mandatory for anyone who plans to own, handle, or be around guns. That's not the entire population.

As a mom, I'd object to my sons' school teaching them to handle guns when we don't own any or ever plan to.

As a teacher, I'd mightily resent more instructional time being used for something else outside the classroom, using time and resources, while still expecting me to get as much accomplished as before.

As a citizen, I don't think our public schools are an appropriate place.
I'd suggest gun safety education be sponsored by other community groups, be scheduled on weekends, and not be connected to public schools.

only outlaws will accidentally shoot their kids.

Saw that on a bumper sticker not long ago. Thought it was pretty funny.

I think Hitler said that.

But no one has answered your challenge question yet :eyes:

Robert Heinlein. I don't usually confuse those two.

heh heh

ever read america as science fiction? by bruce franklin

it's a little out there but well worth yr time and a lot of fun

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961

The complete quote is:

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Hitler's position on guns mirrored that of Stalin: People shouldn't have guns. The state should have guns.

Gun enthusiasts take comfort in the dumbest quotes and theories. If guns made men free, safe and "polite", third world hellholes would be the best places to live and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the EU would be "impolite" gulags.

The issue is choice. Some people choose to have guns. Others choose not. If people choose to have guns, then they should be educated about how to live with guns. There'd be a whole lot less dead people in this country due to firearm accidents if people were educated about guns, which many are sadly not. That's my position on guns. As far as your implication that guns have never made men free, well, I think some of America's Founders have some ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.

Besides, I neither affirmed or denied the merits of Heinlein's words in the previous post. I merely pointed out which person said those words.

Blacks, native Americans, women, non landowners and others didn't have Constitutional protections. The rights of Tories were violated, in fact that's where the term lynching came from. Rose colored glasses about the past doesn't make for reality today.

Why are so many nations with strong gun regs among the freest on the planet while American's freedom goes downhill with the rise of the gun lobby? Can anyone doubt that Canada or the Netherlands is a freer nation than America at this point.

Why are so many nations with strong gun regs among the freest on the planet while American's freedom goes downhill with the rise of the gun lobby? Can anyone doubt that Canada or the Netherlands is a freer nation than America at this point.

The existence of guns or not does not necessarily equate to freedom. Rather, the issue of lax regulations dealing with guns is a symptom of a bigger problem. The problem with the US government is a problem of representation. Ever since the 1970s when the SCOTUS ruled that special interest money was protected free speech, the problem of graft and corruption in our government has been an ever-growing nightmare.

Yes, you can buy a gun in the US, but no, people are not really educated about how to safely handle such weapons, and that's where the NRA comes in, and that's where the real problems begin. For years, they have been throwing whatever ludicrous obstacle in the way whenever it came to passing common sense gun regulations like closing loopholes at gun shows. If Americans still want to have the choice to have firearms, then they should probably study the Swiss with respect to living with firearms RESPONSIBLY. At least they regulate the issue.

If you want to smoke weed or have the freedom to exchange money for sex, then I frankly don't care as long as it is made as safe as possible for the sake of everybody's wellbeing. That includes the issue of guns as well.

Stopping "crime" isn't necessarily why I own them.

It's those damn bullets.

The following 10 stories are all from Febuary 2005 http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2005_02_01_archive.html



Monday, February 28, 2005

Harris County, Texas

From the Houston Chronicle of February 28, 2005

Bar owner guns down suspected burglar

A man was shot to death early today in a confrontation with the owner of a north Harris County bar responding to a burglar alarm, sheriff's detectives said.

Kevin Anthony Miller, 22, was shot one time in the abdomen and was taken to Cypress Fairbanks Medical Center, where he died, homicide detectives said.

He was shot by the 58-year-old man who owns the bar, sheriff's reports show. That businessman is cooperating with homicide detectives, and the case will be referred to a grand jury for review.

The incident occurred at 5 a.m. when an alarm sounded at the Circle M Bar and Grill in the 15900 block of Telge near Louetta. Deputies arrived to find Miller shot in the parking lot and the bar owner armed with a pistol.

The bar owner told detectives he had responded to the alarm at his business, which is located just west of his home. He grabbed a handgun and encountered Miller coming out of the bar after it was burglarized. The two men had a confrontation in the parking lot, and the bar owner shot at Miller several times, hitting him once, detectives said.


posted by Pete at 2:41 PM


Macclenny, Florida

From Jacksonville’s FirstCoastNews.com of February 25, 2005

Pawn Shop Shoot-Out

The small town of Macclenny in Baker County is usually a quiet place, not much crime here; but that wasn't the case this week.

There was a shootout at a local pawn shop, but the armed robber didn't do the shooting, it was the pawn shop owner.

Bruce Sales owns Duval Gun and Pawn in downtown Macclenny. He says on Wednesday just after 1-pm everything happened so quickly. He says a man came into his pawn shop and asked to look at a knife, but before he knew it the man had a gun pointed right at him. Sales says, "Had a gun in his hands and started yelling at me to get on my knees and put a pillow case over my head."

Sales thought the man was going to kill him so he started wrestling with him over the gun. Sales says, "We fought for ten or fifteen seconds, then he put the gun in my face closer and cocked it and I knew then, if I didn't get him then I'd be a dead man." Sales grabbed the suspect's hand and the gun went off, luckily into the ceiling. Sales then quickly grabbed for a loaded gun on his desk. Sales says, "He had already told me he was going to kill me so I shot him, or I shot at him."

The bullets didn't hit the suspect, they hit a glass case in the store instead. The gun shots however, were enough to scare the suspect out of the store. About 8 hours later, a block away, police caught up with the suspect and took him down with a taser.

Baker County Sheriff's Office Chief Chuck Brannan says, "Mr. Sale being a gunshot (sic) owner gave an excellent description of the pistol and matched it perfectly to the pistol we got from the suspect later that night."

Glenn Schofield is in the Baker County jail for the pawn shop robbery. He is facing numerous charges including armed robbery. Police say he has a lengthy criminal history, including two homicide arrests.


posted by Pete at 6:04 AM

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Oakland, California

From the February 26, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle:

Patrick McCullough has been complaining to Oakland police about drug dealers for the past 10 years -- and telling the young men who congregate in front of his house at 59th Street and Shattuck Avenue to beat it.

For his efforts, the 49-year-old has endured harassment, threats, vandalism and an assault in 2003.

Then, during an evening rainstorm on Feb. 18, about 15 young men surrounded McCullough and shouted "snitch" and other taunts as he walked from his front door to his driveway.

Someone hit him with a branch, and others threw punches. McCullough told police he had seen a 17-year-old reach for a gun, so he drew his own gun and shot his would-be assailant in the arm.

"I'm a man, not a mouse nor a vigilante. I'm not looking for medals, just a safe neighborhood and peaceful existence," said McCullough, who grew up in a housing project on the south side of Chicago. "I don't believe in vigilantism under any circumstances. What I did and will continue to do is take my safety in my own hands."

McCullough was arrested on suspicion of felony assault and is free on $15, 000 bail. Prosecutors are deciding whether to file charges against him or any of his assailants. McCullough has no criminal record and does not need a permit to keep the gun, which he purchased legally, on his property.

"I expect we'll be making a decision next week," said Deputy District Attorney Jim Lee.

Yeah, that's a hard decision.

posted by Clayton at 9:02 PM
San Luis, Arizona

From the Yuma Sun of January 7, 2005

Investigation continues in fatal shooting in San Luis

Police continued an investigation Thursday into a shooting in San Luis, Ariz., that left a man dead earlier in the week.

Lt. Blanca Vazquez, spokeswoman for the San Luis Police, said Genaro Morales, 26, was shot twice with a9 mm weapon on Monday in front of the home at space No. 215 in the Hacienda San Luis mobile home park, 115 County 22nd St.

Vazquez said Morales was transported to Yuma Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

No arrests have been made in the case. However, police have spoken to Arturo Medina, 28, a Mexican national who resides at the home where the shooting took place. Vazquez said Medina turned himself in Tuesday.

"He pretty much admitted to the whole thing," she said.

Vazquez said the shooting is believed to be the result of an argument over money. She said that Morales allegedly pulled out a knife, prompting Medina to pull out a gun and shoot.

Medina is currently free while the investigation continues. He has not been charged with any crime.

Vazquez said it was "a possibility" that self-defense would be an issue in the case.

No subsequent stories about this incident were found.

posted by Pete at 4:43 PM

Friday, February 25, 2005

Charlotte, North Carolina

From Charlotte’s WCNC.com of February 25, 2005

Owner shoots men who attempt to rob store

Two men who attempted to rob an east Charlotte shoe store Friday afternoon were shot by the owner, police say.

The attempted robbery happened at the Shoe Warehouse at 1537 E. Sugar Creek Road around 3:50 p.m.

According to police, three or four men tried to rob the Shoe Warehouse. Police said the owner fired shots when the suspects tried to get to the cash register.

One of the suspects was shot inside the store and did not make it out. The two or three other suspects ran out of the store and carjacked a victim in a Suzuki. The suspects pushed two men out of the vehicle and took off.

One of the suspects was transported from the scene by Medic emergency traffic to Carolinas Medical Center. A second injured suspect got away, but later showed up at Presbyterian Hospital for treatment for a gunshot wound.


posted by Pete at 4:23 PM

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Eugene, Oregon

From the Eugene Register-Guard of January 13, 2005

Details of fatal shooting start to emerge

Todd Alan Hughes was shot to death Tuesday after a neighbor responded to his girlfriend's cries for help.

Eugene police say Hughes, 43, was assaulting the woman on the sidewalk in front of the ramshackle house they shared at 2020 W. 13th Ave.

The alleged shooter, James Michael Winkelman, 48, lives nearby. He was walking his dog about 6 p.m. when his daughter ran up and told him that a woman was being raped. The girl, 13, ran to call police, and Winkelman walked to the house to see if he could help the woman.

The woman was gone when he arrived, but Hughes soon showed up.

Hughes and Winkelman had some kind of encounter, police said, which ended with Hughes' death.

Winkelman yelled for neighbors to call police, and he waited there until officers arrived, police spokeswoman Pam Olshanski said. Winkelman has cooperated with the investigation, she said.

Officers confiscated two handguns at the scene - one from Winkelman and one from Hughes' body, she said. They located and interviewed the girlfriend, who said Hughes was beating her, but not raping her.

(More)

A subsequent story confirms that the shooting was ruled “justified.”.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Hillsborough, North Carolina

From the Durham Herald-Sun of February 22, 2005

Hillsborough man kills armed intruder

A 28-year-old man Hillsborough man shot and killed a gun-wielding intruder at his home early Monday morning, and the district attorney has ruled he acted in self-defense.

Jerome Carl Murphy, 39, of 320 W. Union St., Hillsborough, died at the home of Durante Davis of 1807 Piney Grove Church Road about 2 a.m. Monday after Davis shot him twice in the chest, said Orange-Chatham District Attorney Carl Fox.

The incident began when Davis, who lives in an apartment attached to his parents' home east of Hillsborough, heard a knock on his door, Fox said. When Davis asked who it was, a man answered and said he needed help, Fox said. "When opened the door, the person produced a gun and pushed his way into the home," Fox said.

The intruder, later identified as Murphy, had a knit cap pulled down over his face and a scarf over his mouth, Fox said. Murphy pushed Davis as he entered the room and got around behind him and held him while he put a gun to Davis' head, Fox said. "He said, 'Give it up. Give me everything,' " Fox said.

"Mr. Davis said, 'Take what you want,' and then decided to grab the gun that was against his head," Fox said.

Davis and Murphy struggled over the gun, and during the struggle, the gun fell to the floor. Murphy, who was still behind Davis, then pulled a knife out of his pocket and flipped it open, Fox said. Davis, however, had a .38-caliber gun in the pocket of his sweatpants, and he pulled that out and fired over his shoulder at Murphy, Fox said.

Davis fired the gun three times, and two shots hit Murphy. Murphy fell to the floor and died, Fox said.

During their investigation, sheriff's investigators found the gun and the knife that Murphy was carrying on the floor of the room. The gun turned out to be a pellet gun, Fox said.


posted by Pete at 5:35 AM

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Springfield, Missouri
rom Oklahoma City’s ChannelOklahoma.com of February 17, 2005

911 Call Reveals Woman's Struggle With Purse Thief

Woman Held Suspect At Gunpoint Until Police Arrived

Oklahoma City police released a 911 recording Thursday that reveals a dramatic struggle following an attempted purse-snatching in south Oklahoma City.

Barbara Gesell, 83, had just pulled into her garage when a man ran inside her garage and grabbed her purse, which has hanging across her shoulder. A suspect, Robert Campbell, was arrested shortly afterward on suspicion of attempted robbery.

Police said the story might have ended differently if Gesell's daughter, Theresa Gesell, had not taken action.
According to police, Theresa Gesell ran behind Campbell and tried to catch him when he ran from the scene. While she was chasing the suspect, she called 911.

"A man has attacked us in our house, and we are fighting him in the yard," Theresa Gesell said to the 911 dispatcher.
As the struggle moved down the street, a neighbor -- whom Theresa Gesell identified as "Hershall" -- stopped to help. Theresa then grabbed her .45-caliber pistol and continued running after Campbell -- despite the dispatcher's plea for her to drop the handgun.

"I am going to go get my .45 ... you all are too slow," she said.

As the call continues, the dispatcher asks Theresa to get rid of the weapon. However, after the suspect tried to escape along a creek bed, Theresa and Hershall used the pistol to make sure he didn't leave.

"You can go put that gun up now," the dispatcher said.

"No sir," Theresa replied. "We have the gun pointed at him ... he must have been a city fellow because he didn't know anything about the woods."

Seconds later, police arrived and arrested Campbell. With Hershall's help, the Gesells retrieved Barbara's purse.

Campbell is currently housed in the Oklahoma County Jail. He is expected to be charged with assault and attempted robbery.


posted by Pete at 4:52 PM


Ponca City, Oklahoma

From the Oklahoma City’s ChannelOklahoma.com of February 21, 2005

Ponca City Man Dies From Gunshot Wounds

Police Say Shooting Followed Confrontation With Couple

A 34-year-old man was shot after a confrontation with another man and his wife, police said.

Witnesses told investigators the man walked up to the back of a house, grabbed the wife of a man who lived there and began making threats. The woman's 26-year-old husband retrieved a gun from inside the house and fired multiple shots, hitting the victim once in the head, the spokesman said.

The victim, whose name was not released, was taken to Via Christi Oklahoma Regional Medical Center in Ponca City where he died, police said.


posted by Pete at 10:43 AM

:thumbsup:

just blew the premise of this thread out of the water. Do I hear crickets chirping???? thought so.

America's absurdly weak gun regulations are an obvious waste of life and resources. In fact no other advanced nation has this bloodthirsty system and in fact most are moving to even stronger regulations such as freedom and dignity loving Canada is doing by proposing a ban on handguns. Gun "rights" is just a dog whistle for bigotry, just ask NRA board member Ted Nugent.

<http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm >


Or the neocon thug Dick Cheney who sided with the apartheid regime against Nelson Mandela.

Last time I looked, about 40% of voters favored a ban on handguns, even with no public debate on the issue to speak of.

not a majority favor it huh....is that what you call overwhelming support. nice try though, thanks for playing

I think the statistic you are refering to is where people use a gun in self-defense and still get charged with a crime, and subsequently are aquitted.

I don't think it encompases the thousands of times per year a gun is presented, and never fired, or people who do shoot an attacker and are never charged.

or imaginary crime stopping....

but I have trouble saying others shouldn't have the right to.

The case that comes to mind for me is the Carr Brothers murders in Wichita a few years ago.

If anyone hasn't heard of it, two thugs broke into an apartment late at night where there were five former college friends in their mid-twenties had gotten together, three men and two women. The two didn't know any of the five.

The brothers forced the five into one room and ordered them to strip naked under gunpoint. Then they were put into a walk-in closet.

One woman was ordered into the living room where she was beaten and raped. Then she went into the closet and the other woman was brought out where she was beaten and raped. This went on all night. The two women were ordered out together where they were forced to have sex with each other.

Then each man was brought out one at a time where they were severely beaten with a golf club and forced to have sex with each woman. One of the men was beaten very severely as he was in a seminary studying for the priesthood and didn't want to have sex with the women.

In the early morning hours each victim, one at a time was driven still naked to an ATM where they withdrew as much as they could.

In the early AM the five victims were driven to a high school coccer field still naked, marched through the snow and ordered to kneel down where they were each shot with a single bullet to the back of the head. Then the murderers roda over the bodies with their truck.

Incredibly one of the women survived. The bullet was deflected by a hairpin she wore. It went into her skull but was deflected so it didn't penetrate it. She walked bloody, dazed and naked about a mile in the snow to a house where help was called.

Turns out the brothers also killed a violinist a few days earlier.

Anyway, I just have to feel that if there was a gun in that house, those lives could have been saved. The victim said they talked about jumping the two but they were afraid to act because the brothers usually had 1-2 of them separated from the rest. One of the men was a high school teacher and football coach.

Anyway, I have never owned a gun mostly because I have a kid in the house, but I just don't feel like I have the right to tell others they can't have one.

I know other people who've said they've used them in defense.

One older guy told me he woke up to a noise and soemone was in his backyard trying to lift a window. He got his gun and showed it to the guy through the window and the guy ran into the alley.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

Here's a link to the "Wichita Massacre" as it was called during the trial.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/special_packages/carr_trial/

You post a link to a pro gun blog site to prove your argument? Sorry, no cigar.

You know, I could go to free republic to prove that bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. :eyes:

The stories come from local newspapers. They are just compiled by a pro-gun site. If you wanted to you could get the same stories from each individual paper. What difference would that make? It would be the same stories.

and claim they come from local newspapers. Just like you just did - LOL.

Sorry - NO CIGAR.

I have been through this pro gun argument before - on a freeper dominated board. They made the same arguments you do. Funny thing is, when I did just a little research, I found the stories were 99% bullshit.

My favorite was the claim that only 10 kids had been killed accidentally by guns in 10 years in the entire USA. That was also linked to a pro gun site. Since in my city alone, there had been SIX accidental deaths in the previous year, I knew that 'only 10 in 10 years' claim was completely false. Yet, it was cited repeatedly by 'experts' on several pro gun sites. So no, I don't trust the data from those sites anymore than I trust the 'proof' on FR that bush is a great president. LOL

I just responded to your dismissal of them.

He showed which newspapers they came from.

Someone asked for 10 stories and he provided them. If you think he's making them up, then research one or two and check.

But to just dismiss them out of hand like that just seems like putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear what you don't agree with.

Just from one academic to another.

he could have posted links to each story. That's what I would have done.

And no, I don't believe HE is making them up. They are all on that pro gun site he linked. I am just sayin, my experience with those sites has found them to be less than reliable.

then put your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA!

Great.

As far as the stories go -- here are a few of the actual links:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3060877.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/26/MNGKVBHHQ11.DTL

http://sun.yumasun.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/14095

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-022505-al-robbery_shooting.e3071fa8.html

Didn't have much time last night to give the links to actual newspapers -- are you happy now?

10 stories from 2005 where a gun was used to stop crime.

I provided 10 stories -- all from Febuary.

As someone who has lived in an area where it takes an hour to get the police to show up at your door, and has used a gun to stop a crime, I think that our resident anti-gun folks have no idea of the reality of life outside the big cities and subburbs.

Here's a site you might be interested in - a bit small at the moment, but still growing:

Amendment II Democrats

Not that the OP didn't set himself up for this to eventually happen, though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like that band of thugs that tried it a few years ago. A couple of those guys looked like good candidates for a track team after I pulled out my Smith & Wesson 38 special.

Outlaw the guns, and only the outlaws and government will own them.

Ask any cop how so many guns get into the hands of the wrong people. They get stolen out of cars and homes where people brag about having them.

Do you think you may have some visitors?

good idea!

post a sign on your front lawn broadcasting that your house is packed with handguns. We'll see who's house is the first one to get broken into. Handguns are one of the top priorities on every burglar's wishlist.

edit for spelling

In my area a gun free home is quite rare. I guess it might invite an attempted break in however they would have a tough time toting away my gun safe! Then there is the possibility I may come home during their attempt. That may make them think twice.
One thing is for sure, they would think twice about coming here while I was at home- how about your home?

Sign shows a picture of a gun looking straight at the viewer. Haven't you ever seen those signs? They sell well at gun shows. I have seen homes with them. There are no survey on the results, but anecdotal evidence is encouraging.

Not so many people anymore want to advertise they have guns to steal. 170,000 guns stolen every year.

"The AGSF report, entitled Stolen Firearms: Arming the Enemy, found that gun theft is a two-edged problem: for the hundreds of thousands of gun owners and dealers who have been the victims of theft, and for the communities where the nearly 170,000 annual stolen guns end up, fueling the black market and being used in gun crimes. According to the report, six states - Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia - have firearm theft rates of at least twice the national average. California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina had the most firearm thefts over the past 10 years."

<http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm>

Once again 200 justifiable homicides with guns vs 170,000 stolen guns every year

There have never been any stats on those signs.

The rest is your usual cut & paste and has been refuted by others in this thread.

"Do you have any weapons?"

One evil freeper who sucker punched me from behind at work a decade or so ago ended up in jail when pulled over for felony speeding and they searched his car and put him away for awhile on weapons violations.

I do not support the violation of any weapons laws.

...that all guns should be outlawed. I thought that not too long ago.

But back then, when debating 2nd ammendment fans, one of their arguments was always "we need a well-armed populace in case we need to fight tyranny in our own government."

"What are the chances of that?" I thought.

1. Woman who shot attacker tells story
Friday, September 17, 2004

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04261/380685.stm


2. Jogger who shot attacker says he felt life was in danger
By Joseph Barrios
Arizona Daily Star
Wednesday, 31 May 2000

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=914


3. Woman Defends Herself in Home Invasion

http://wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=874220&nav=1ugBAMvx


4. Club owner fends off attacker
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/07/23/19942.php


5. Mother in Early shoots, kills intruder

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/16773682.html


6. Apartment intruder shot to death
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/1165489.html


7. Deputy’s Attacker Shot by Officers
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/deputyas_attack.php


8. Chain Saw Attacker Shot

http://www.mymotherlode.com/News/article/kvml/bdc5840712c5b3df153c3c0398d1976d


9. Deputies: St. Johns Home-Invasion Burglar Shot By Victim

http://www.news4jax.com/news/5248054/detail.html?subid=10101101


10. Good shot: Crime victim makes his target
By William Kenny

http://www.northeasttimes.com/2001/1128/cover.html


BANG! BANG!

Game, set , match for them allright.

5 Killed in Va. Murder-Suicide Shootings
By Associated Press

Mon Dec 26, 3:42 AM

GREAT FALLS, Va. - Five people were found dead in apparent murder-suicide shootings Sunday at homes in two well-to-do suburbs of Washington, police said.

Officers found the bodies of three men and one woman in a house in Great Falls when they responded to reports of gunfire at about 10:25 a.m., Fairfax County Police said.

Police said they believe one of those found dead at the first house was responsible for all the shootings.
--------------------------snip---------------------------------------
These murder suicides have become a folk crime in today's gun crazed America.

and all they were doing was shopping.

My google fu is not as powerful as some here, but this is what I found pretty quickly:

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4275388

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_354150019.html

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/ar.../news/news1.txt

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...m16robbery.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...SPG36G6F801.DTL

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...eadlines-orange

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...crime05-ON.html

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/si...ory/html/224062

http://www.courant.com/news/local/h...headlines-local

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13121933.htm

This links up to a bunch of stories from previous years:

http://goodguyswin.org/information/...se.asp?CatID=43

If you need more, this only took about 4 minutes to find all of this.

The ratio of handgun crimes to crimes prevented by a handgun is something like a billion to one.

Nobody will prove to you that guns stop crime. OTOH, anyone can prove the opposite.

also, find some statistics that show how, when reporting deaths, how many were actually crimes, and how many were committed by legally owned guns (ie, the illegally owned ones werent stopped by 'gun control' laws)

I suppose the Unites States has such a high crime rate because of little old ladies attacking bus drivers or something, but the obscene number of handguns has nothing to do with it. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

by doctors than guns? Or something equally irrelevant as that?

I stand by my original statement that the number of handgun deaths is insane. If you're saying that's false, then how about you prove me wrong. You can't so you won't. Even if I mentioned some exact figures you gun apologists always have some nonsensical smartass answer that's totally irrelevant.

Find me a single instance of a crime committed because of a gun. Please. I invite you to show me even ONE.

Guns don't cause crime. PEOPLE cause crime. And people cause crime because of social factors that mould and influence their behaviour. Poverty. Racism. Social inequality. Poor education. The decay of social services in major urban areas. ALL of these things are more responsible for high rates of violent crime than guns are. The US is in many ways a deeply broken and fundamentally flawed society, but you mistake the symptom (high rate of violent crimes) for the disease. Address the underlying social problems, and you begin to make headway on the problem. Banning guns is about as effective a solution as treating an amputated leg with two aspirin and a glass of water.

Do an anonymous poll at a big prison and I think you'll learn that most crimes committed with a gun would simply not be committed if not for the overwhelming advantage afforded the bearer of a loaded gun.

one rather suspects that the underlying factors I named had something to do with the path that led to these people being in prison. One also suspects that if guns were illegal, many of these same people would still commit crimes, only with machetes and baseball bats and other weapons.

criminals wouldn't give a damn.

They'd use guns anyway. That's why they're criminals.

poll them and see if any number of gun control laws would have stopped them from getting one.

And they are right. In some rare instances gun owners are successful in twarting crimes.

Some kid wakes into a liquor store with a knife to hold it up and clown behind the counter swings around a shotgun and blows the in-process felon away. It happens somewhere about once a week. Every time it happes the NRA publishs the account. The point is that it really does happen.

The point you sould be making is that although there is an occasional success there are many more failures. Kids finding guns and blowing playmates away would be justification enough to remove guns if you asked me - but then I don't thin police should have them either and that possession of a hand gun should be punishable by a non-negotiable 10 year sentence - for anyone, in civil uniform or not. I also think that for other than training purposes on a military reservation and guards at select sensitive facilities that even our military sould be disarmed while in CONUS. And before the asswipes start yelling you might notice that on any military base in this country almost no one roams around with a gun even today.

Guns are tools, weapons. They can do nothing on their own. Someone has to use them.

People with guns stop crime all the time. Every arrest made in America by a law enforcement officer is made by someone with a gun (although there are probably exceptions).

Crime, like terrorism, is a tactic, a function, a choice. It can't be "stopped" or waged war upon, because it is an idea that is carried out. We can discourage crime, we can make it more trouble than it's worth to all but the most persistant criminals, but it won't ever go away entirely as long as it is a valid choice.

people do.

Weapons are tools designed by us for killing. Without us, they are merely tools. Those tools are not the problem, the hand that wields them is. Banning tools, be they Ford Rangers or bazookas, isn't a real solution to deaths caused by those wielding the tools. The correct course of action is to change the mind of those who would kill. Of course, this is also the most difficult course of action, so most people don't want to invest the resources necessary to actually solve the problem and they rely instead on bandaid quick-fixes, like bans or mandatory sentencing, which never work in the long run.

are pretty lethal.

And unfortunately, adults are not screened to be sure they will keep the 'tool' away from kids before they can buy a gun.

Chain saws, knives, ATVs, nail guns (Gun is just what they are named. They drive nails, not shoot bullets.) electricity, etc. How many kids are killed each year by electric shock? We need to ban all that stuff - for the kids.

Some parents get drunk and drive their kids around, too. There are laws in place to punish it when they are caught (usually after an accident), but they certainly don't prevent it. However, taking cars away from everyone wouldn't work, either.

What we need to do is change the way we think as a culture. We need to accept responsibility for our actions and their consequences, rather than trying to litigate everything or otherwise blame someone or something else. I'm NOT saying we should do away with laws, or that we should stop taking people to court when they are to blame for something. I'm saying that if someone, say, chooses to own a gun, they should accept that they are also choosing to be responsible for that gun and the consequences of its use and ownership. It seems obvious to say this, but it apparently isn't to many.

a true story that happened to my husband. He had an unloaded pistol in his pocket as he was riding his bike around our neighborhood some years ago. He stopped his bike and was sitting there looking into the canal where there were turtles, little alligators, and various fish to look at. Anyway, as he was sitting there, two young men drove up in a car and one of them threatened him with a knife. He pulled out his unloaded pistol and they took off in a hurry. He now usually carries the same pistol - loaded.

Story #2. My cousin's husband, a security guard, was carrying his pistol in a shoulder holster, when a man with a knife tried to rob him at an ATM machine. You got it - he pulled out his loaded weapon and the would-be robber ran off.

Two personal knowledge stories for you. In both these cases, the fella with the gun (good guy) could have gotten hurt if he hadn't had the weapon. Neither was reported to the "news" or police.

Edit: Note that no one was shot, and luckily the bad guys only had knives.

are the most common ways guns prevent crimes.

A person is threatened, the victim shows a gun and the threatening person turns and goes away.

No report, no damage, and no way of knowing how many robberies, rapes and murders are prevented, but certainly some are.

How many children die each year because guns are in the home? And even though I expect adults to be responsible, how many adults die because of accidents in the home with guns?

This can go around and around all day.

drove the car because the adults in the home were irresponsible?

knives, household chemicals, matches/lighters/cigarettes etc...

because I have a young id.

But I certainly feel I should have a right to if I want to.

And if I recall correctly, the nationwide gun-accident rate has fallen another 40% since those figures were recorded. And it is also important to note that accident stats do not exclude accidents in the homes of criminals, who are statistically much more likely to engage in risky behavior of all sorts, and have higher accident rates across the board.

On a per-owning-household basis, swimming pools are between 10 and 100 times more likely to result in the accidental death of your child than a gun in the home is.

My wife and I keep our guns in a safe when not in use, BTW. When we're home, one carbine in the safe will generally be loaded, and we also have a quick-access pistol box separate from the main safe. Risk of accidents, negligible. I don't see how you can rationally have a problem with my wife and I owning guns, on that basis.

To attack with the same zeal, ANY control-freak, like King George, who tries to usurp my civil liberties or in any way abridge the Bill of Rights... The Second Amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." They weren't thinking about hunting rifles, when, in their profound wisdom, our forefathers wrote the amendment. It's obvious that they felt WE THE PEOPLE needed a final safeguard to keep big brother from kicking in our doors without just cause or a warrant and hauling us off to some camp in Cuba, instead of subscribing to due process of law put forth in subsequent amendments. Let's see, first Republicans destroy my rights to Due Process and then some Democrat control freak steps in to take away all of the guns... The Beatles wrote a song that applies to this trend, called Back in the USSR! No element in the Bill of Rights is less important than the others. In slightly different words both Jefferson and Franklin said, "When people choose security over freedom, they will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Just sayin . . .

Per Title X, United States Code. Those not members of the National Guard are legally members of the disorganised militia.

than letting citizens arm themselves to ward off criminal attacks.

It's important to keep in mind the context in which it was written. At the time, "militia" meant armed citizens. As legally defined under Title X of the United States Code, it clearly still does. Which part of this do you not understand?

Britian would try to start a war (as they did in 1812) and we would have no militia to fight back. So allowing our citizens to bear arms was an easy (and inexpensive) way to have a militia at the ready in case of a foreign invasion.

THAT is the context in which the second amendment was written. It is NOT about arming citizens to protect themselves from criminals.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson

At least in part.

Contemporary quotations from people whose interpretations I trust more than yours:

"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil... Divine providence has given to every individual the means of self defense." -- George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." --Noah Webster

"The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --Richard Henry Lee

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson

" No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." -- John Adams

There are many more in the same vein. The weight of the evidence regarding the context of the amendment isn't on your side.

I particularly like

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

Because it's a quote of dubious validity.


The following quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are likewise fictional. The quotes are not to be found in their speeches, personal correspondence, or diaries. Nor have the quotes ever been cited in law journals by Second Amendment legal scholars.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

Occasionally the Jefferson quote is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. The editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

would no longer be very effective against tyranny in government. They long ago armed themselves with weapons that no private citizen has access to.

I think an armed citizenry does at least put up a barrier against tyranny. A bunch of armed, pissed-off Americans could put up a hell of a fight. Look what the Palestinians do and the insurgents in Iraq.

guerrilla and so-called terrorist tactics can accomplish a lot but that kind of battle goes on and on for many years. I hope that elections work better here (Diebold aside).

in your previous post

I heard many many second amendment conversations as I was growing up. He also used this as an essay question on final exams.

at least as regards this particular issue, if one may infer that his teaching largely informs your views.

I've seen you adduce nothing to support your argument; you merely make flat assertions. And I also note that you chose not to respond to citation of evidence contemporary with the writing of the 2nd Amendment which contradicts your view of the subject. Not to mention that the English common law, which forms the basis for much of our Constitution, recognised the right to arms; Blackstone, in his commentaries, lists it as an "absolute" right.

I submit that imposing one's ideological biases upon history, while choosing to ignore context and contemporary evidence (as you appear to be doing) is, at the least, intellectually dishonest.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

On Oct, 20, 2005 this passed both houses of Congress. Signed by POTUS on 10/26/05. It appears that congress has defined what the second amendment means.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

The above is from the text of the bill from Thomas.gov

Elected by the most dubious means.

Just because you may not like a particular congress, that does not mean that the laws made are not laws. And about 1/3 of the Democrats also voted for it.

A rant and name calling and yelling, "Hitler" changes nothing.

Just because you don't like the congress does not mean that the law is not a law. In this particular case, I do like that law. On other matters, of course, I would disagree with this congress, but we aren't talking about those other matters as this as a gun thread.

I guess you agree with him and the rest of the NRA crowd. You ought to take it as sign that you're on the wrong side of history when the most corrupt and dangerous Congress in history passes this advisory you love so much. Afterall, Hitler did make the trains run on time and Zell Miller is still looking for a duel.

Just because I agree with someone on one point, doesn't mean I buy their whole package.

And my point was that whether you like it or not, that law was passed and is on the books. So any discussion of what the second amendment means has to take that into account. It can't be ignored, and calling the congress that passed it names does not change anything.

You seem to reach for the Hitler arguement a lot. Are you aware of Godwin's Law?

You like that the crooks put through a law you like. What does that say about you? As America goes more urban your failed promiscous gun laws will be changed democratically.

You don't think that Bush/Cheney and their neoCON masters are Hitler and NAZI like? That also says a lot about you and your ilk.

So celebrate and gloat over NAZI America now cause at some point America will adopt the commonsense gun regs the rest of the world has or devolve into a third world country with every packing and being scared of ambush.

I haven't said that I like the current congress. As you usually do you distort what I say and attempt to put words in my mouth. I have said that I like the specific act that I quoted.

"Enjoy" these ill begotten fruits while you can.

Just today another woman was gunned down dead by her law abiding gun owner husband. "He said he armed himself to ensure that his wife “would be quiet and talk to him,” the affidavit says."

We're never going to have "Peace on Earth Goodwill Toward Men" in a armed camp. There's not an advanced nation in the world moving to emulate America's failed gun policy, in fact, most are inauguratingg stronger gun regs.

<http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051225/NEWS06/51225021>

Arms can bring about peace. It has worked for us at least twice, and probably (but not for certain) three times. Our guns have never disrupted our peace.

Sorry if the truth upsets you so. This is an illegitimate government. Progressives and the rest of the world knows it. Einstein said you can't fight for peace. I think he's smarter than you and the gun "enthusiast" crowd.

It's sad you you are such an apologist for these neocon crooks in Congress and you feel so threatened even in a hide your gun state that you must be armed so much. Seems like such a burden. Sadly gun ownership is a burder on all of us. 30,000 deaths a year, over 100,000 shooting victims, a $100 billion of losses and a deterioration of the commons that's incalculable.

BTW, why do you post on a progressive board if you have this need to stand up for this illegitimate Congress?

In other areas I have complained about congress. Most specifically with regard to health care. But this thread is not about that. It is about guns, and this sub-thread is about the second amendment. I don't have to like everything someone does to be able to agree with them on one thing.

It is you who are saying I love them, not me. I like one thing that they did. I can do that without liking everything else.

I have often stated that my personal politics average out to about the 45L line. Some issues (Health care) I am hard left. Some issues I am further right - RKBA being a big one.

The billions in costs from guns kind of puts a damper on National healthcare. Reality is that counties and states right now are paying out the ying yang for the follies of the gun lobby and it's followers. $100 billion in costs from gun injuries and death is a good start.

You brag about the wonderful law this illigitimate Congress passed that you liked. You can't have it both ways

I can work to elect Democrats that support both. They do exist.

Guns, many of them initially held in the hands of civilians, helped win the America War of Independence and American Civil War, and guns held in the hands of civilians have never started a war in America, so what you say is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't prove anything.

The reason I and many other people would like to see stricter gun control laws in America is nothing to do with warfare, its because of the large number of people killed by them accidentally and deliberately in peacetime.

Nowadays America's military might is so overwhelming that the American army doesn't *need* the support of an armed militia, and that will only become more the case as time goes on and the advance of techology makes military might dependent more and more on money and science rather than manpower.

For reference, I'm believe that any decent gun-control in America would be unconstitutional unless you second ammendment were repealed, and that that will not, alas, happen in the forseeable future, and that trying to introduce even semi-decent gun control, especially on a federal level, would be electoral suicide for the Democrats, so I don't think they should try and do it. I do think that America would be a better place to live with gun control on about the level we have here in the UK, though,

I will instantly agree that those who post here about armed rebellion against the gov't have been watching "Red Dawn" a few times too many. My .45 will be completely useless against a tank, and of very little value against an infantry fire team.

For some reason, the UK has never had that many handguns. Even in the 19th century when your gun laws were about like ours, (Almost none.) it was very uncommon for an average person to have a gun. At the same time in the US, outside of the major cities, almost every man carried a gun in open display. The American habit of the universal carrying of arms was commented on my several European writers of the period.

One writer of the period, writing about San Franciso, noted that all gentlemen were expected to have a gun somewheres on their person, and that most ladies would also have a smaller gun, well hidden.
The streets were very safe, even in the rough parts of town.

The police can only act after a crime, to catch a criminal after he has hurt me. I prefer not to be hurt by giving the bad guy a good reason to leave me alone.

Just curious. I've never met one, every criminal I ever met was pretty much unique.

by creating a law wishing a goodly portion its meaning away. Laws are subordinate to the Constitution and the Amendments thereof. And the reading of the Second Amendment has been interpreted by successive Republican and neocon administrations in a far more permissive manner than others of the Bill of Rights. There has been a refuge of sanity however in the courts and no amount of legal demagoguery is going to undo it; the wording of the Second Amendment itself trumps any attempt to modify or clarify it by inferior law.

The fact that the dependent clause beginning "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is not mentioned in the law you quote is both willful and revealing.

The Second Amendment by itself does not give people some untrammeled right to own and use firearms or any other weaponry. If it did so, you couldn't prevent any psycho from buying a fully loaded and armored Abrams tank or even a nuclear weapon. Very few people would argue the Second Amendment incurs unabridgable rights to just any weapon and it is therefore illogical to posit it confers an absolute right on just any person to own a firearm.

You can't even derive such a right by going back in time and asserting that since firearms were available when the Second Amendment was written, that that historically has intimated a right to bear firearms and not nuclear weapons. Even if that were a valid legal strategy (it isn't), the firearms today are so different in capabilities and qualities than were available during the time the Second Amendment was written that they might as well be wholly different weapons, and almost any weapon imaginable can be turned into a fired weapon (hence, "firearm") of some type.

Moreover, "shall not be infringed" is very absolute wording and does not permit any kind of nuanced reading which would permit the non-existent "right" asserted by the right to be abridged. If you confer such a right upon the average citizen using that wording, then hedging it with such things as forbidding firearms to those with a prediliction to violence or mental instability would seem to be unconstitutional on its face. The only thing that saves the Second Amendment from such a clearly nutty assertion *is* the dependent clause which clearly deliniates its scope to that of "well regulated militias". To assert otherwise is hysterically unreasonable, if often and nonsensically asserted again and again.

In short, people who try to advance the broad right-wing asserted scope of the 2nd Amendment are trying to have it both ways. Either there is an absolute right for all people to bear ANY weapon (via "shall not be infringed" and the word "arms") or there is no such right in the Second Amendment *at all* applying to ALL PEOPLE.

Fortunately for people who simply cannot live without their guns, there is an escape clause: There is no such thing as a "right" to bear arms on the part of an average citizen in the Second Amendment; similarly it is not forbidden for people to own weapons in the Second Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution either. Moreover, if a more bizarrely unworkable absolute "right" were desired, there is nothing preventing the Congress and the several States from adopting such a right via the amendment process.

So I am left to wonder, why don't the gun types attempt to pass just such an clarifying Amendment? Surely they don't think they would lose such an epic legal battle?

...a crowded theater, nor does the freedom of religion clause allow you to have human sacrifices. Many of the other amendments are also limited. Convicted felons are often stripped of the right to vote.

Amending the constitution is extremely difficult. Even though we RKBA types are in a clear majority, we don't have that much of a majority. A determined minority can stop a constitutional amendment. Notice that the Equal Right Amendment also failed of passage even though a MAJORITY of the states ratified it.

I get rather tired of anti gunners attempting the nuclear argument. It is a plain silly strawman. No RKBAer advocates private ownership of nukes, or of artillery either for that matter. Only a few of us advocate private ownership of fully automatic weapons. Most of us are content with the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as having drawn a very reasonable line between firearms and ordnance.

Further, the many writings of the framers made it very clear what their intentions were. They wanted the private person to be able to have individual small arms with little restriction. In this same thread, another poster, "Spider Jerusalem" has listed many quotes from the Founding Fathers.

The first is that you cannot undo or subvert the meaning of an Amendment to the Constitution with a subordinate law. If you could, the First Amendment and all the others would be meaningless in the sense that they could be defined essentially out of existence by subsequent law.

As such, any law passed by Congress in 2005 explaining what the sense of the present Congress is regarding the Second Amendment in a broad context is practically meaningless. At the very least, relying on such a resolution prior to a high court ruling on the matter is premature; it is for the courts to decide ultimately what can get attached on Constitutional matters and not for Congress. For example, Congress could pass a "clarifying" law that says the First Amendment only means anything in a church setting and elsewhere is null and void. Yes, it is a ludicrous example but the point is, any such law would be laughed out of any court in the land as well it should be, and once such a thing got to the Supreme Court the law passed by Congress would be good for nothing but toilet paper. The wording of the First Amdendment trumps any such broad based "clarifying" attempts, especially absent of any "compelling state interest". You literally need another Amendment to change the wording or "clarify" the words themselves.

While, yes, NARROW restrictions have been added to Amendments such as the First, but ultimately these things boil down to some compelling state interest and have been laboriously strained through the sieve of the courts; that is far different from passing a law in 2005 and declaring that law, untested by any court anywhere, ends the debate. I believe this is essentially what you are trying to claim in your highest level post on this topic and lest I be accused of creating a "straw man" IF that is what you meant, I flatly deny this is so.

Relying on the so-called "intent of the framers" is a similarly often used attempt to avoid the issue that in law words themselves actually mean things and that the framers subsequent words are not laws. Yes, you can point at what Madison said or what this framer said or what that framer said, and those items will be duly considered by a court, but unless you have a document signed by EVERY framer of the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment, claiming the "high ground" by attempting a breathtaking leap into what ALL the framers had in their hearts is highly dubious at best. And even if you did have such a document, which I know you don't, you simply cannot substitute intent for the words themselves.

Much as Expansive Second Amendment Advocates might wish it were not so, "well regulated" and "militia" as words in the Second Amendment cannot just be done away with or conveniently parsed away with rickety reasoning, and similarly the marked absence of any further qualifiers to "shall not be infringed" cannot be simply and secretly murdered out of sight and given an unremarked burial, "framers intent" notwithstanding.

--------------------------------------------

My second main argument is that defining an AVERAGE PERSON'S RIGHT out of the Second Amendment has no utilitarian value whatsoever.

As opposed to the narrow , tightly constrained because of compelling state interest restrictions on Amendments like the First, there are so many reasonable hedges around any such construed Second Amendment "right" as to have no practical value as a "right" in the first place.

As such, my "nuclear" analogy was not a straw man, I was not saying that gun advocates stand in favor of mentally deranged psychopaths owning nuclear weapons; in fact I was saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that any reasonable person is in favor of reasonable restrictions on the possession by an average person of certain weapons, and on the possession of any weapons by some or all persons not in the military or otherwise not duly authorized. The qualifiers are so many and so sweeping as to make construing an average person's RIGHT out of the 2nd Amendment an exercise in either futility or else ludicrous claims of personal liberty that do not pass the practial reality test.

Whether we like it or not, a deranged psychopath has freedom of speech if she is not in prison. Unless the psychopath advocates killing the president or yells fire in a crowded theater or creates a public hazard or extreme nuisance or attempts to violate other people's rights or a handful of other very tightly defined things, you simply cannot shut her up, nor should you be able to. The First Amendment simply and absolutely forbids it absent a simple, practically compelling and legally defined, court tested need.

Not so with the Second Amendment. If you are deemed legally unfit to carry or use a firearm, like being a felon or being legally insane or judged prone to violence, you may not own one or carry one around. Nor do I think you are arguing this, to be utterly clear. Unless you are in the military and authorized to do so, you simply cannot walk around in any city that I know of in America with live grenades strapped to your belt. A minigun is a "firearm" (if a very large one) by any reasonable test -- you can tell me if a "minigun" is a firearm by the 1934 Federal Firearms Act, I really do not care -- but no one I know advocates an average person ought to be able to brandish an operational loaded one on his front lawn.

Thus, gun advocates, I am arguing, cannot have it both ways. They cannont claim an average person's RIGHT out of the Second Amendment and at the same time accept the breadth and depth of the restrictions to such a right's operation in practice, restrictions that any sane person would accept and restrictions that incidentally have passed court tests.

This type of complexity is characteristics of a legal code, and not of what most people understand as "rights" in the traditional sense.

You can find a high priced lawyer who will make your arguments, and the RKBA groups can find equally high powered ones to argue on their side. Utlimately, it will come down to a definative court test. The law I mention is not without some weight. It establishes the sense of the people as acted upon by congress. A former supreme justice has said that the court is not blind to the mood of the people, even if it doesn't request a poll. (We would both hope they don't request a poll.)

I do consider the nuke argument a strawman. Because we do accept some limits does not mean that we all limits should be accepted. Perhaps you have hear the old sexist joke in which a woman is propositioned for a million dollars, she accepts, the man then offers $20 and she is insulted and asks if she thinks she is a whore. The man answers, "We have already established that. Now we are merely haggling price." The joke appears to turn on the truth of a principle, but ignores the real world truth of scale. The scale can modify the principle.

In fact, that same truth is what shows the fallacy of Rush's strawman on the minimum wage. Rush says that if raising the minimum wage is a good idea, then why not raise it to a million dollars an hour? After all, he says, the principle is the same. Of course, Rush is ignoring that the scale modifies the principle.

The question will never truly be settled. The trend now is toward greater access to individual firearms that can be used for personal defense and hunting, but towards greater restrictions on guns more capable than that. I can live with that.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about stooping crime, it isn't about hunting, it isn't about sport or target shooting.

What is it about? It is about the American people having the ability to defend themselves AGAINST their government when it, eventually, turns on them.

All governments will eventually tend towards despotism (I believe that was either Franklin or Jefferson)
If these rights are ever threatened, it will be in the guise of a fight against a foreign enemy (paraphrase of Jefferson)

Guns don't stop crime, but that's ok because that isn't what they are for.

and enjoy reading Franklin and Jefferson... they took their lessons from an even wiser source... I think it was Plato that first described the shortcomings and inevitable decline of various types of governments, including a democracy, in The Republic.

I can never remember who said the line about the tendency towards despotism (and google was no help).

Reality is that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect the status quo government and was used to put down the first rebellion. Also it didn't apply to black people from day one.
<http://www.sjchs-history.org/Shays.html>

Blacks and Indians were often forbidden to own guns. And much of the modern gun control efforts would disproportionately disarm blacks. Especially those blacks who are so poor that they can't leave high crime areas would be effected by those actions that would force the price of guns up so that they would not be able to afford guns to protect themselves and what little they do have.

From day one the RBKA didn't pertain to blacks and was the main defense against slave revolts---Jefferson's "firebell in the night", he so feared.

Today the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and many black leaders and celebrities are on the NRA enemies list. Many pro gun rights groups and websites are noted for virulent racism. Charlton's Heston's seminal speeches have been hailed by racist's like David Duke and Ted Nugent. Support for stronger gun regulations is very strong in black communities and among blacks in the Democratic party. Support for the present progun administration is at historic lows among black voters with some polls coming in as low a 2% approval.

<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

Lack of application of the 2nd is gun control, therefore it was gun control that was racist. But at that time, the entire constitution was racist. Only white, male, landholders could vote, and blacks counted for 3/5 of a person.

Just as the country had to grow, so did the application ALL of the constitution to ALL of the people had to grow.

I guess gun "enthusisast" white guys know more about black people's problems than they do.:crazy: Nevertheless, poll after poll shows very strong support in the black community for gun regulation. Maybe if America started counting black people's votes, we would have a far different gun policy.

don't have any intention of using it as self defense?

Few gun owners will vote for somebody that wants to take the guns away. Many of them would vote Democratic if it weren't for gun control.

though I suspect that the reason most people 'believe' Democrats want to take your guns is that that is the propoganda the RW/Republicans put out, when in fact, as this board has shown, there are far more gun owners on the Dem/left side than they would have people believe.

think about this.. maybe the repubs WANT the dems to push for gun control to lose elections and power. The main gun control lobby group the brady center is run by sarah brady, lifelong republican.
was this group designed to undermine the progressive democrat platform...hmmmm

to seperate the Democrats from the Brady bunch. I can't stand her.

Even on DU, gun owners are treated with much more respect than they were just two years ago.

There are also very few congressmen who are caling for the outright ban of handguns today while 20 years ago that was the mainstream position of the northeastern Democratic congressman.

Thereis been a real change going on in the party over the last 20 years or so on the issue of guns.

John Kerry has voted for EVERY gun control bill that has been before him. He has pushed legislation that would have banned the very same shotgun that he used on the goose hunting photo-op.

Ted Kennedy has named the .30-.30 as a dangerous cop killer cartridge and wants to ban it and all similar cartridges. The 30-30 is well over a hundred years old, and is one of the more common hunting rifles in the US. Banning it would do away with ALL centerfire hunting rifles.

Then there is Diane "turn them all in Mr & Mrs America" Fienstein.

Which Party raised all the hell about the AWB not being renewed?
Which Party was against the recent law that gave protection for the manufactures against the "sue them out of business" campaign?

Now tell me that we aren't shooting ourselves in the foot over the issue.

For the same reason they don't copy our healthcare system, our prison system or our labor laws, because the American way of doing things is a failure. It's no accident that freedom loving Canada is allowing gay marriage and legalizing some drugs while banning handguns, it's the civilized and common sense thing to do. Most Americans are for stronger gun laws and the Dems are just giving them what they want, what the rest of the industrialized world already has.

BTW, you don't see the NRA crowd saying a word about crooked voting machines or voter suppression and the reason for that is because they don't have the public on their side, they don't want fair voting.

(as a percentage of the population), with no restrictions on sale of handguns bar mandatory registration, yet a significantly lower murder rate? Would you call Finland "uncivilised"? How about France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, and Austria? Handguns are subject to registration and some restrictions (but NOT banned) in those countries, and they all have significantly lower murder rates (and firearms suicide rates that cluster around 5 in 150,000, with a deviation of 1.5 on either side). It's a bit disingenuous of you to say that an outright ban is the only "civilised" or "sensible" thing to do.

I'm for whatever sensible restrictions we can get and all Euro nations, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have gun regulation we should look at emulating. If communities like San Francisco want to ban that's great but I wouldn't expect bans in rural states, but rural states shouldn't be gun stores for the crooks of America like they are now.

<http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html>

Poverty, ignorance and a sense of hopelessness are a three-pronged pitch-fork of the dark demon called Crime. Taking away guns, like other types of oppressive laws don't dull the points of this pitch-fork at all. In fact, crime usually rises when oppressive laws become the mainstay in a society. While crime is often the first resort of those who succumb to their animal nature, it is also the last resort of just person. I ask you, if your children were starving in New Orleans and there was no other way to get food, would you resort to stealing?

-----If there was no death then how do you prove a gun stopped it?------(I know you'll probably pick on this sentence but read further- and please be fair and don't take it out of context) I knew of a few home invasions in Maine where the homeowners gun appears to have been a deterrent but you can't PROVE that was the case. Anymore then his fists, a knife, or baseball bat. How would you prove the bat stopped a crime? So I see this as an unfair question.

But my other point is this... (I don't have the 2005 data yet) But in 2004 Maine had the highest per capita gun ownership and the LOWEST violent crime rate in the nation. Furthermore most everyone I know has at least one handgun... it's not all just hunting rifles and shotguns.

They certainly have a wll armed citizenry.

By that I mean burglaries, muggings, etc? Got any stats?

I've never owned a gun before, I was always dead set against having one in my own household. However, I've come to the "if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" conclusion. For Christmas, my father (a retired policeman) is buying my family a gun. He was thrilled to learn that we crossed to the other side (afa gun control). We're going to go to classes to learn how to use it properly.

I love Michael Moore but I just can't agree with him on this one.

America is a country that treats the poor like shit and that leads them to crime. This causes the American media to over-hype the crime and causes people to live in fear and want things like assault weapons legalized so that they can defend themselves. Criminals get their hands on these assault weapons and go kill more people.

In Canada, they don't treat their poor like shit and don't scare the living daylights out of their people. As a result people go buy shotguns and pistols and use them for hunting and target practice and that's about it.

John Kerry was dead on when he said that "You don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer." The problem is that people like Charlton Heston and other have scared a certain population of this country into thinking that they need one to defend themselves from scary black people.

All the AWB did was ban guns that looked like an AK-47, but had the workings of an ordinary semi-auto hunting rifle. And Kerry should have know that.

BTW - Were you aware that Kerry pushed for gun control legislation that would have banned the very same shotgun that he used on the goose hunting photo-op?

Instead of shooting hundreds of rounds a minute, it just shoots dozens per minute and can be converted to shoot faster.

And I know that automatics have been illegal since the machine gun ban of 1934 and I think that Kerry did too, I think that he was just making a point that you don't hunt deer with assault weapons.

I'm not even saying that I'm in favor of stricter gun control laws, because a lot of the time they don't work. My point, and I think that this was Michael Moore's point as well, was that we live in a fear obsessed culture where people think that they need AK-47's, MAC 10's, and Glocks to defend their homes from criminals. As a result, more of these guns get into circulation and more people who shouldn't get their hands on them.

The point isn't that these weapons should be banned by the government. The point is that people, with perhaps the exception of gun collectors who are far and few, have no rational purpose to own these weapons in the first place. If nobody bought these weapons, they would not be made and sold in mass quantities that they are and thus there would be far fewer of them available to criminals.

I am not in shape to fight a twenty-something criminal, and no amount of conditioning will ever cure that. Age takes it's toll. But Samuel Colt made all men equal, so I can give a young criminal reason to leave me alone.

Years ago I used a pistol to scare off an assailant. No shots fired.

As a young woman, my wife used a shotgun to deter a rapist. No shots fired, he fled and was never captured.

And a few days ago, having a .38 in her gunny pack (That is a specialized fanny pack.) made a difference in a street encounter. No shots fired, in fact she didn't even have to pull the gun out of the pack, nor did she threaten the guy. She had her hand in the pack on the gun, she was prepared for trouble if he meant trouble. Street criminals know what a gunny pack is and the guy saw that she was ready if he meant trouble. The guy that was the possible threat turned and left quickly. Was that a true gun save? We will never know for certain. (Local friends who know the area and the details of the incident think it was a gun save. So do I.) Maybe the guy meant no harm. But having it available gave my wife the confidence to address the situation without fear. BTW - Yes, she was legal. We both have CHL's. That's what Texas calls a CCW.

I must disagree with you that guns aren't needed for personal self protection.

I knew an actual gun owner who got into an argument with his wife and she shot him dead with his own gun. BTW, she was cheating on him. Sadly he's dead cause he was stupid enough to have a gun in the home. It's well proven that guns in the home end up killing the people in the home many many times more than intruders. Unfortunately it's innocent women, children and neighbors who bear the brunt of America's gun mayhem and not crooks or the irresponsible gun owners themselves.

BTW, maybe you should move to a better neighborhood if you have all these "street" criminals who make you carry heat around all the time.

And dropping his pants was a clue to his intentions. You can be so silly sometimes.

None of the incidents I listed happened where we live. Her incident with the would be rapist was over 40 years ago. Mine was in a different city. Her recent incident was at work, in a bad part of Dallas. I pack because you never know when you might need it.

In domestic shootings, there is almost always a history of violence leading up to the shooting. One almost never has a loving happy couple suddenly shoot each other. With our very long loving history together, I trust my wife completely, and vice versa.

Then there is the 30,000 dead, over 100 thousand wounded and $100 billion dollars a year in damages that occur like an endless war. The worst thing is the devaluation of human life and the public commons by promiscuous gun laws that all other advanced nations have rejected.